Cerebral venous thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: the role for endovascular treatment

Endovascular treatment of cerebral sinus thrombosis due to vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia

INTRODUCTION

There is little data on the role of endovascular treatment (EVT) of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) due to vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Here, we describe clinical characteristics and outcomes of CVST-VITT patients who were treated with EVT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We report data from an international registry of patients who developed CVST within 28 days of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, reported between 29 March 2021 and 6 March 2023. VITT was defined according to the Pavord criteria.

RESULTS

EVT was performed in 18/136 (13%) patients with CVST-VITT (92% aspiration and/or stent retrieval, 8% local thrombolysis). Most common indications were extensive thrombosis and clinical or radiological deterioration. Compared to non-EVT patients, those receiving EVT had a higher median thrombus load (4.5 vs 3). Following EVT, local blood flow was improved in 83% (10/12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 54-96). One (6%) asymptomatic sinus perforation occurred. Eight (44%) patients treated with EVT also underwent decompressive surgery. Mortality was 50% (9/18, 95% CI 29-71) and 88% (8/9, 95% CI 25-66) of surviving EVT patients achieved functional independence with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at follow-up. In multivariable analysis, EVT was not associated with increased mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.66, 95% CI 0.16-2.58).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

We describe the largest cohort of CVST-VITT patients receiving EVT. Half of the patients receiving EVT died during hospital admission, but most survivors achieved functional independence.

Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Vein and Venous Sinus Thrombosis—A Systematic Review

Background: Cerebral venous sinus or vein thromboses (SVT) are treated with heparin followed by oral anticoagulation. Even after receiving the best medical treatment, numerous patients experience neurological deterioration, intracerebral hemorrhage or brain edema. Debate regarding whether endovascular treatment (EVT) is beneficial in such severe cases remains ongoing. This systematic review summarizes the current evidence supporting the use of EVT for SVT on the basis of case presentations, with a focus on patient selection, treatment strategies and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This systemic literature review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective observational data analyzing five or more patients. Follow-up information (modified Rankin scale (mRS)) was required to be provided (individual patient data). Results: 21 records (n = 405 patients; 1 RCT, 20 observational studies) were identified. EVT was found to be feasible and safe in a highly selected patient cohort but was not associated with an increase in good functional outcomes (mRS 0–2) in RCT data. In observational data, good functional outcomes were frequently observed despite an anticipated poor prognosis. Conclusion: The current evidence does not support the routine incorporation of EVT in SVT treatment. However, in a patient cohort prone to poor prognosis, EVT might be a reasonable therapeutic option. Further studies determining the patients at risk, choice of methods and devices, and timing of treatment initiation are warranted.